I thought that your post (Deidra) on Stranger in a Strange Land addressed a very interesting quote. The most important part of the quote I thought was, "Democracy is a poor system; the only thing that can be said for it is that it is eight times as good as any other method." I too picked up on this quote while reading, and I thought it was one of the better quotes in the book. I also thought that your discussion of Heinlein's anticommunist stance, and Mike's almost socialist governed church was a good point. However, I feel that you could have explored the quote it self a little more with questions like: "Why is Democracy a poor system?", "What makes it a better system than other systems?", and "Do you personally agree?" I feel that questions like these would have led to a more in depth analysis. Personally I completely agree with Heinlein. I think Democracy is a poor system because we still have problems with crime, poverty, drugs, social unrest, discrimination,etc. However, I think that Heinlein is right on when he says that it works better than any other form of government. Democracy dose have rich and poor divisions, but it seems to allow more freedom among its classes than the cast system. Democracy as it is capitalist seems to lead inherently toward greed, but it also seem to be more productive than a Marxist society. Most importantly it insures that political power is divided among its citizens, rather than in any one person as in a dictatorship. I agree that it stinks, but I think that it is better than any other system. Perhaps the view is because of my own prejudices of living in a Democratic nation. I don't know, but I would like to hear your point of view. --Joshua Primm
Response to Nine
Jenny Cisna is discussing the tendency of humans to ignore the obvious in order to make their life easier in her email post. I agree that we as a society do not properly examine the outcomes of technological advances that we make. Our society does not place a great value on the future, but instead lives for the present. I think that is because we see no immediate results. Just as in the book, the consequences of our actions regarding environmental concerns are not visible at this stage of the game, but our children and their children will begin to see the punishments in a real way. I believe that humans seem only to understand their mistakes when they are pointed out drastically. This is what I expected to happen in the book, although the problem of the positron pump never really reached a huge climax, but was instead solved when little visible damage has occurred. I found this very interesting. --Misty Dillow
Twelve
In the book, "The Gods Themselves", and interesting quote can be found in a discussion between the commissioner and Denison regarding Hallam. It states, "It's not for his sake. You can't smash an image that has been built to a level of such importance; it would reflect on science itself."
They are discussing the fact that although Hallam was ignorant about the dangers of the pump, his name was still saved regardless of the new information about the sun. Denison, of course, believes that Hallam's name should not be saved, because he did not try to find the consequences of pumping and was in addition not the true "father of the positron pump." The comissioner believes that his name should be saved since science would also take a blow if his name was drug through the mud. I agree with Denison. If a scientist does not take the time to find out the problems with what they call their invention, (even if it is not really in the case of Hallam), then they should not be held as an esteemed and brilliant scientist in the eyes of the public. Hallam's name should not be saved simply because science would be hurt if he were defaced. I wholeheartedly agree with Denison that Hallam should be accountable for the consequences of the pump he called his invention, and should therefore lose his credibility as a scientist. --Misty Dillow
Response to Five
In response to Misty Dillow's question of competition among humans I think that competition drives our society to learn and think. If it weren't for survival of the fittest in the adult world, what would drive people to discover, invent, and discuss important things in our society? I like competition because it drives me to do better and achieve more. I do not attempt to speak for the entire human race, but if there were no competition, I don't know what would drive me to learn, achieve, or stive to do better. --Deidra Dame
Response to Ten
In post ten, Jason Durbin is discussing that he likes the break between the different worlds that Asimov has instituted. I also like the break, but I found it also to be frustrating. Every time you really started to understand the characters, the setting switched. I did enjoy the different settings and the new characters and agree that it kept me interested in the book. Yet, I wished that he would have related the sections better. They seemed to be three separate worlds with little contact or connecting features. For these reasons, I found the breaks but interesting and frustrating. --Misty Dillow
